Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To hope that we can follow Iceland in banning male circumcision

999 replies

GladAllOver · 19/02/2018 16:10

It really is time that this nasty practice is stopped.
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/18/iceland-ban-male-circumcision-first-european-country

OP posts:
gussyfinknottle · 20/02/2018 07:15

As I understand it, hotter/desert climes are a driver for male circumcision. Much like a no shellfish rule.
This then became enshrined in religious practice and law.
In wet and windy UK it may not make sense , but it does in the Middle East. I have a male relative (Christian) born in that part of the world who was circumcised for that reason.

Headofthehive55 · 20/02/2018 07:30

Most vaccinations wear off. That's why you have boosters.
My DD has an almost 50% chance of developing breast cancer. Should I therefore logically remove her breasts?
Of course not. It's for her to decide.
As is belonging to a religion.

Headofthehive55 · 20/02/2018 07:32

IT is only a religious gain for the parent- not the child as the child has not yet decided what religion it will be.

larrygrylls · 20/02/2018 07:35

In the parent’s opinion, it is a gain for the child. Luckily, when it comes to children, parents are allowed to make decisions that THEY feel are in their children’s best interests.

EllebellyBeeblebrox · 20/02/2018 07:39

And in some parents opinion it is in their child's best interests to undergo FGM. That is also wrong. Parents do not have the ultimate right over their children and their bodies.

larrygrylls · 20/02/2018 07:41

Nope,

As I said above, parents are allowed to decide if the state feels that the harm is not too great. In all civilised countries this is the status of male circumcision.

Headofthehive55 · 20/02/2018 07:42

It would only be a gain for the child if they became that religion. Bad parents try to enforce a particular religion on their children. Good parents don't.

larrygrylls · 20/02/2018 07:44

Head,

Circumcision is, in a Jewish person’s opinion, allowing the child the option to choose, not ‘forcing’ religion upon them (if that is even possible).

Headofthehive55 · 20/02/2018 07:47

But it isn't choice if they themselves don't make it!

BertrandRussell · 20/02/2018 07:48

“Luckily, when it comes to children, parents are allowed to make decisions that THEY feel are in their children’s best interests.”

Not when it comes to non medically advised permanently body changing surgery, they aren’t.

samG76 · 20/02/2018 07:49

Headodhive55 - this secularist view of religion is probably shared by no more than 20% of the world, tops.

How could I nor enforce religion on my kids? Should I take them to McD, even though DH and I keep kosher?mor send them to football on Saturdays? Obviously when they set up home themselves they can decide what to do, and I hope they will be practising, but all the parents can do is set what we hope is an example that DCs want to follow.

BertrandRussell · 20/02/2018 07:50

Sam. Stop smoke screening. It’s nothing to do with religion. It’s about consent.

GnotherGnu · 20/02/2018 07:53

I can’t get my head around the argument (often made on the feminist boards) that abortion should be a right until the day of birth and yet 8 days later removing a tiny piece of foreskin is child abuse.

Even if you can point to anyone on MN who has actually taken that stance, they will be one of a tiny minority and the point really proves nothing.

The fact that parents perceive that there is a religious benefit to the child in doing this is not justification. Over the years we have stopped plenty of religion-based practises which we do not deem to be in the interests of the child concerned, so we clearly recognise that there comes a point when the parents' choice has to be overridden.

larrygrylls · 20/02/2018 07:53

Bertrand,

You cannot deny a fact. Parents are allowed to elect for their male child to be circumcised. Outside of Iceland, it is not considered abusive.

Headofthehive55 · 20/02/2018 07:55

sam
Like you said when they are older they can choose what they do. But they can't. How about if their choice is to have an intact foreskin. A choice you have taken away.
I'm not the same religion as my ancestors. It's important that you retain all aspects of choice.

larrygrylls · 20/02/2018 07:56

Yes we do stop religious practices which we consider infringe human rights. Do you think no lawmaker has thought about this? They have considered the arguments on both sides and consider parental freedom overrides the (very very limited, if any) harm.

BertrandRussell · 20/02/2018 07:56

“You cannot deny a fact. Parents are allowed to elect for their male child to be circumcised. Outside of Iceland, it is not considered abusive“
I know they are. The question is should they be allowed. On the basis of consent issues alone the answer is that they shouldn’t. You cannot deny a fact.

samG76 · 20/02/2018 07:56

And good to know only bad parents enforce religion on their kids. I must have been to 150+ bar/bat mitzvahs, and it's fascinating to realise now how shockingly bad all the parents were. Even more remarkable that, despite the allegedly terrible parenting, Jewish kids have by some way the best life chances of any ethnic group in the country.

EllebellyBeeblebrox · 20/02/2018 07:57

No one is denying the fact that it is legal for parents to elect for their child to be circumcised. I for one can only hope that Iceland considering banning this is the first in a long line of "civilised countries" that stop sanctioning this barbarism in the name of religion.

BertrandRussell · 20/02/2018 07:58

“Even more remarkable that, despite the allegedly terrible parenting, Jewish kids have by some way the best life chances of any ethnic group in the country.”

More smoke screening. Talk to me about consent.

larrygrylls · 20/02/2018 07:59

Bertrand,

I have dealt with the consent issue re vaccination. Children do not get to consent if parents consider a legal procedure in their best interest for any reason. Fact.

Your argument is not about consent, it is about perceived benefit vs harm. At least be logical.

Headofthehive55 · 20/02/2018 08:00

larry
I think you'll find it's considered abusive in lots of places. I'm hoping the U.K. Will follow suit. Even if people find they have to leave this country because of it.
There are men's groups that have formed because they think it was abuse to themselves as babies. They are widespread.

PatriarchyPersonified · 20/02/2018 08:00

TotHappy

I see you posted a reply after I went to bed you little tinker. Well anyway as I said I don't want to derail the thread but i think your post deserves a response.

no, if he exists as he is supposed to exist by classical Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh theology, then he is not part of the universe

Thats a big if. You have no basis for making that claim about the qualities of God or gods as its based on nothing other than the teachings of the major religions, which are incentivized to try and insulate themselves from the requirement for evidence or possibility of falsification.

So direct scientific evidence is logically impossible

How convenient.

There are however, other kinds of evidence - philosophical, experiential, historical

Hmmm, I disagree here. There are different types of claim that can be made, but in terms of ,evidence? Experiential? Do you mean religious people experiencing their own chosen God? I tend to discount that type of thing, because its amazing that for every Christian that has experienced Jesus in all his glory, I could find you a Hindu who would be equally convinced they has experienced Krishna or Ganesh. Interestingly people only experience deitys specific to their own religion. I wonder why?

Historical evidence can point to certain event described in the Bible possibly happening, the exodus etc, however that doesn't prove God as an ancient people moving location thousands of years ago isn't really that surprising or out of the ordinary.

I am particularly interested in philosophical 'proof' as its the kind of proof that the religious (and I'm willing to bet you as well) like to hang their hat on, however there are two major problems with philosophical proof.

The first is the complicated one. Philosophical proofs are based on axioms (self evident truths). If the axioms they are based on are shown to be incorrect, then the proof falls apart. SInce most religious 'proofs' normally contain an axiom such as 'the Bible is the inspired word of God' or some such thing, I'm sure you can understand why I'm less than convinced. I wonder what axioms your philosophical proofs are based on?

The second objection to philosophical proof is slightly more flippant, and it is that they are just not that convincing. As an example, if I came to you and said I had cast iron, unarguable proof that the Loch Ness Monster existed, but it was a philosophical argument that proved the necessity of his existence would you accept that? Or would you say something along the lines of "that's nice Patriarchy but I'd like to see some actual proof as well before I believe you".

It's naive to assume that religion is irrational, when some of the best minds who we have access to have been thoughtfully reasoning it out for millennia

The fact that the 'best minds' have spent the last 2000-3000 years trying to prove God's existence and have got us no farther than when they started is an argument for my position, not for yours!

So we are back where we started, with no evidence of any kind to support your claims.

I'll hold off on chopping chunks off my sons genitals to please 'God' for now shall I?

BertrandRussell · 20/02/2018 08:01

Vaccination is medically advised. We as a society allow parents to override a child’s consent when it is medically advised. Circumcision is the only surgical procedure where this does not apply.

sashh · 20/02/2018 08:03

I think this’d just see the practice driven underground in religious communities

I don't think so, I think there will be a market for Dr's to declare a child needs it for medical reasons.

We as a society do overrule religious practices. If you pray for your child instead of taking them to a Dr (Christian Scientist practise) when they have a serious illness SS will become involved.

If JW parents refuse a blood transfusion the hospital will go to court.

it does reduce cervical cancer and the transmission of stds.

No it doesn't, a foreskin protects from STD, with the exception of HIV